Why I need reels and racks.

John_Beech wrote on 9/17/2002, 4:49 PM
I've posted this to Support> Product Suggestions . . . but I post it here in hopes others can help refine my explanation. SoFo ask several questions;

Q. What feature would you like to see?

A. SoFo, you've heard it before, I am certain . . . yet this is very important to me as a video editor - a feature I need are "Reels" along with "Racks" for video clips.

I'm not necessarily needing this within Media Pool (though it 'can' be there), but more as an adjunct to Media Pool. That's because though I've never had a Media Pool in an NLE, I can already see where the concept can be useful. That said, Vegas needs Reels (and Racks) too.

Q. How would this feature benefit you?

A. I work with visual media originating on videotape (or film for that matter) that are associated with a particular cassette. I form an visual-association with the picon as representative of the contents of the reel which starts as soon as I first log the footage within VidCap.

I continue to repeat the process (of logging) for however many tapes there are for the project . . . strengthening the visual-association! Meanwhile, as I log footage I am actually assembling a program in my mind! It's worth noting complex projects can have many, many reels some with as many as 100 clips. By the time I am finished, my visual-association with the picons is immensely stroger than a name-association (i.e. text).

Where do Reels and Racks come into play? They're important in the mental sorting process a video-editor goes through as he creates his program on the timeline - by looking at the picons that represent the clips within reels.

While some movies are created with a rigid script into which a textual name-based organization (such as the one provided by Explorer works well), freeform programs, i.e. many documentaries, are created and crafted by getting an overview of all the clips as a rough sorting tool. Implicit in this is the actual 'need' to be able to minimize or open multiple reels in order to "see" the pertinent picons - remember the visiual-association formed by logging? This is part of how an editor of visual-media works to tell a storyl.

How are Reels and Racks different, and why do I use both? To review; Reels are associated with a particular piece of media (perhaps a miniDV videocassette) and contain picons. Reels look much like VidCap - with picons, names, and in/out points. The clips within a Reel are tied to that reel because they actually hold a physical place on the particular media.

I can edit directly by taking individual clips out of various reels straight to the timeline and thus quickly make a rought cut of my movie (or segment of a program). This works for much of the editing.

However, when projects are more complex, editing can take the form of working on differnt segments at a time (which is why we need to be able to join multiple .veg files) and/or by introducing the use of Racks.

Racks, unlike Reels, can contain clips from multiple reels - however, you can never drag a clip from reel1 to reel2 because the clip is physically 'on' reel1, but I 'could' add various clips from reel1-N to a Rack, let's call it rack1.

Racks are a useful tool for the video editor since it permits moving clips around within the rack (perhaps as a prelude to loading them all to the timeline - either maually or via an auto assemble process if the reels/racks have the mechanism to do so). Using racks are another way video-editors work.

Yet which method is chosen, i.e. working on individual segments, or using racks, depends on the complexity of the project.

Hence, racks can hold copies of the clips within reels, but clips within reels are tied to their respective reels only. Racks can also hold graphics, audio clips, whatever.

It's also useful if the individual clips (within reels and bins) could be sorted. Clips could be sorted ascending, or descending and by; reel name (if you are within a rack), clip-names, comments, scenes, takes, shots, mark-in, or mark-out points.

I also benefit as an editor because I can more quickly get up to speed if I leave a project for a few weeks, as upon coming back to it, the picons brings return me to the mind-set of the program taking shape - because of the visual association - and it's much more efficient to simply see a picon (to remember what the clip is about) rather than hope the name of the clip was descriptive enough!

Q. Have you ever seen this feature before? If so, where?

A. That's easy - Final Cut, SoftImage, a Henry workstation, Premier, even my old mainstay NLE, a FAST VM does this. From Media 100 and Avids to the Liquid line Pinnacle acquired when they bought out FAST, to low-end editors like iMovie features this paradigm. It took the world of linear editing and edit decision lists (EDL) into an accelerated recognition process driven by visual cues of the picons.

Lacking these functions are the reason so many are passionate in begging you folks to add folder view to Vegas Video's Media Pool - it's perceived as a flaw.

SoFo, I've come to admire and appreciate the workflow of Vegas Video and hope to see it become more sophisticated for the selfish reason that I don't want to change again anytime soon to another NLE. This is important.

John Beech

Comments

GaryAshorn wrote on 9/17/2002, 5:50 PM
Well, I won't go into all the reasons I agree with John on this one. John, you know why I agree. But the explaination John gives is very real and very useful. I have used and still use such a system and it would be very useful.

Gary Ashorn, PE
Tyler.Durden wrote on 9/17/2002, 6:30 PM
In the interest of refinement and to concur with the above...

The rack/reel implementation found in Fast (and others) also has powerful logging database features that provide for efficient searching of media. Reel, shot, take, angle, comment, 2nd comment; combined with tc and duration they can provide filtering for fast shot retrieval.

Also consider the potential for dragging events or sequences from the timeline down into a rack/bin... complete with cropping and fx.

Discreet edit* has a nice table view that allows editing and organization of database content very much like excel, as do some others.

While the media-pool and explorer are a great foundation for a shared media environment (which many other NLEs have done poorly, BTW), the evolution of media managment for Vegas will benefit greatly from the bin/rack feature.


My .02, MPH



P.S.
(The transport controls in Fast VM studio are good too. Between the logging features and the transport keymap in Fast, I have been able to log hundreds of reels (of tape) at a very fast pace without touching the mouse.)






salad wrote on 9/17/2002, 8:26 PM
Excellent input!!!
I see VV5 in the works....
VV doesn't have a "Find clip" feature does it? It would be nice not to have to use Windows Explorer for tracking down a clip.
wcoxe1 wrote on 9/17/2002, 9:01 PM
Way to go John. Now for my two cents.

Two things to consider for the near future. Several of the old standards in hard drives already have 200GB drives on the market.

1) I believe it was Maxtor that just announced that it has patented a new recording method for super high density hard drives which achieve 100 times the density of their current drives. These drives are expected in less than five years and by drive, will cost roughly the same. Thus, 100 times more storage for the same price.

IBM previously announced something of the same magnitude using a different technology. It is COMING.

People, that means 20,000GB hard drives for the price of today's 200GB drives, in five years or less. Reels and Racks by the TON! EVERYTHING on line all the time.

SF, please get ready for it. NOW!
BillyBoy wrote on 9/17/2002, 9:18 PM
I keep getting the impression that John has these square pegs and he keeps trying to force them into round holes, not noticing he keeps knocking off the corners.

Hint: Much of what you want to do is already possible in Vegas Video. Instead of constantly making what sound like demands to confirm to what you'd like because some other application you use does it a certain way, you would be much further down the road if you actually read the manual and completed the tutorial.

You'd make a much stronger case for your suggested "improvements" if you would begin by defining the terms you use with clarity. You haven't. So at best people are guessing what you would like. You began in another thread suggesting that Vegas was "flawed" by not allowing Media Pool to be "organized" with user defined sub folders. Now you start another thread and greatly expand on things you'd like without really defining how they could be intergrated into the application without major changes.
John_Beech wrote on 9/18/2002, 12:04 PM
BillyBoy, I've been something of a square-peg in a round-hole most of my life - I see no compelling reason to start changing now :>)

Seriously, I wouldn't open my flap had I not been through the tutorials - in fact I went through the online ones again (just last night) in hopes you were right and I, to mix my metaphors, wasn't seeing the forest for the trees. However, I've about had enough of your pointed-end-of-the-stick for right now.

That you don't understand my issue at this stage is discouraging. It means I have utterly failed to describe it. What's more, you apparently attribute it to whining and bitching from one who's not troubled himself to try and learn the Vegas Video editing-paradigm - yet nothing, I feel, could be further from the truth.

Furthermore, there's no issue with 'finding' my media (even an average idiot can use the Explorer-like panel do that). Instead it's an issue of not having arrayed before me the multiple choices I (and clients) have, in the visual-context we have become accustomed to via industry standard NLEs.

What's particularly frustrating is that in a previous post you mentioned working on a project of over an hour-and-a-half duration (an attempt to validate your position I gather - interesting change from somebody who depicts himself as having a complete disdain for folks who even 'mention' their credentials, don't you think?). This further compounds my discouragement as I'd figured you'd 'have' to see the issue . . . presuming you actually created a program of that complexity.

Thus, BillyBoy, what I call a complex project may differ from your definition - yet a brief perusal of my web site will disclose there are over 20 programs on the market, i.e. for sale - each two hours in length, each with well over 500 events, and I refer you to them not as 'my' credentials, i.e. to brag, but to aid you in understanding why an editor of my experience perceives this is an issue with VV (as it currently exists - which hopefully will be resolved).

Furthermore, I subscribe to the notion the squeaky wheel gets the grease so I bring this to folks attention in hopes it gets incorporated into the next VV. Selfish of me, but I really like what I have in VV and only want it to become better.

Further to my experience as a long-form editor, while there are usually one or two projects happening at a time, the case right now is we have four 2-hour projects happening. Also, there are two 22-minute projects, and nearly a dozen sub 30-second projects underway . . . and the need to switch amongst them as client-whims, and mine, dictate.

I bring this up in an attempt to be fair (and give you the benefit of the doubt) as I conclude that our differences in view come about simply because the nature of our businesses differ. Whatever the case may be, I (and interested readers) have no possible way of knowing what, if anything, 'you' have actually produced (thereby putting 'your' words into context) - while anybody can surf to my web site and easily see what programs 'I' have created. Does this raise the specter of professionalism which you have railed against on this forum? Perhaps, but there it is.

Of course, there's always the possibility you don't do as much editing as I do, and hence, you simply cannot fathom (i.e. have a limited understanding of) my needs and desires for better tools with which to managing complex projects within VV. If that's the case, then perhaps you shouldn't be so insulting . . . and instead should chose to learn what you can from folks who 'do' have this as an issue. Of course the possibility exists that I am too stupid to keep the number of assets I have at my disposal in my mind's eye (clients too), and you are more able in this regard than me. If that's the case, there's little to be done - I am just an average fellow doing the best I can within the constraints of the toolset and my abilities.

Nonetheless BillyBoy, in poking around this forum, I see you have been quite helpful on 'many' occasions, so I tread lightly on this, but your position brings into question your experience (or lack thereof) to speak as ardently as you do. Thus, please tell us BillyBoy, what exactly have 'you' ever produced - other than a propensity for sharp words whilst hiding from public view? It would certainly help me, and others, judge whether your words 'should' carry the weight they do as, by definition, on this forum your opinion is equally as worthy as mine until proven otherwise.

Care to ellucidate, or will you instead chose to hide behind a tirade against supposed-professionals in a feeble attempt to escape the consequences of your words? Of course this means if you are exposed as a hack who has never produced anything, folks will henceforth judge your words for their true worth. Naturally, if you turn out to be Francis Ford C. I'll be the one with my foot in my mouth :>)

If, however, it turns out you 'don't' have the experience, your words will be tainted from now on. I'm sorry it has come to this, perhaps you should not have been so sarcastic with us - then again, you can always simply adopt another screen-name.

Why do I bring this up? Interested readers by now have surely noted 'I' do not hide behind a nome de plume (and lob pot shots at folks), but cruise openly with my name, address, and phone number freely available. This forum is supposed to be a place where we help each other, not attack our respective persons. Your aggressiveness however, leaves me little choice but to respond.

John Beech
www.modelsport.com
BillyBoy wrote on 9/18/2002, 6:10 PM
Wow John, I hope you feel better now. <wink>

It seems where our differences are is I am willing to LEARN HOW to use an application as it was designed, while you prefer to be critical of an application (even as a newbie to the application) and loudly find fault with things you don't like or understand how to use to full advantage yet.

Of course you have a right to make suggestions for improvements, I tend to get annoyed when someone suggets they are more "professional" than others and go on to suggest how can anyone use the application without the 'glaring omissions' you are only too happy to point out as flaws. You may need reels and racks (which you still have not clearly defined) others apparently have got along just fine without them, including me, for the couple years or so the application has be out.

It isn't your suggestions, it is how your present them that's annoying. You've written several posts that suggest the rest of us mere mortals have been struggling along in the dark and aren't we luckly that John, the great god of video ediiting has stumbled into the forum to set us on the right path.

Sorry, I'm not impressed with self-important types. I just try to help people use the application as it was written. Which to me is pretty damn good.

actvman wrote on 9/18/2002, 8:14 PM
NLEs have been in the market for going on 10 years now. It is unusual to find a true "newbie" in the sense that they have not used a digital editing tool before. So many of the users of VV3 will carry baggage in the front door.

Is this this good? Bad? It doesnt really matter, it is the reality of todays market. It is unreasonable to think that all the other tools got it "wrong" and Vegas has it "right" on all fronts. I too am new to Vegas, and although I am a bit more reserved in my comments than John, I see things that I would change to be more comfortable.

I have long held that we use tools to make our lives easier. A tool should strive to adapt to the way we as individuals work. Asking a user to work the way the tool works is wrong. Such thinking is old school. To the contrary, look at what FAST (Pinnacle) did with Purple/Silver/Blue. They have customizable key mappings and control layouts. If you want it to work like that AVID you used to edit on, it is a simple task to remap the controls. Presto, an AVID editor is up and running with a minimum of muss and fuss. No retooling needed.

Dont get me wrong, I am very impressed with Vegas and I have used a number of systems. Coming late to the party lets you study what everyone else is wearing. New blood brings new ideas. This forum is like a collective brainstorming session. Not everything that is mentioned is "good" but no ideas are "bad"

Chris

BillyBoy wrote on 9/18/2002, 9:59 PM
I think a lot of people like Vegas in part because it broke the mold of what a NLE should be. Some people are more resistant to change than others and have difficulty doing things differently and for a variety of reasons think something is "broken" when it isn't. By the way, I've used just about every graphic application ever written for the PC platform both still and video over the past twenty odd years. The first five minutes with Vegas Video, I knew I finally found what I was looking for. Everything else seems clumsy and backward once you get use to Vegas which does a few things a little differently. Can Vegas Video be improved? Sure, but to make a 90 degree shift in how things are done I think would be a major mistake. If there were any major "missing" features, surely the thousands of people that post to this forum would have brought it to SoFo's attention prior to any Johnny-come-lately bringing it up now. That's my never humble opinion. <wink>
vicmilt wrote on 9/18/2002, 10:23 PM
Can't we all just get along?

I've greatly enjoyed and learned from both John and Billy - thanks guys.
VV3 is a brand new product - at least in the eyes of a guy like me who started editing in film (gasp). Believe it or not, we cut the film with a metal cutter and pasted it back together with Scotch Tape!
Bins were rolling racks filled with little snippets of actual film and everything was carefully logged by an assistant. When one of those racks got knocked over, you KNEW that the film would never, could never be the same.
Anyhow... enough BS from the "old days". I agree with John that there's got to be a better way of managing your assets and I also agree with Billy that you've got to work with what you've got! BUT - I would really hate it if either of you guys got so ticked off at the other that you gave up on this forum, I enjoy reading and learning from you both....

Meanwhile it is sort of like arguing about the weather - ain't too much you can do about it, right now, anyway. SF - get us some folders!
BillyBoy wrote on 9/18/2002, 10:37 PM
Butting heads is fun in a sort of weird way. Trust me, I'm not mad. You don't want to see me mad. I was mad once or twice, I think the last time was in 1984.
Tyler.Durden wrote on 9/19/2002, 8:43 AM
There are very good reasons (many described above) for a rack/bin model to be implemented in Vegas. SoFo is aware and acknowledges this. The model has existed in NLEs since their conception, and likely will continue.

I see no reason why bin/rack implementation could or should not exist alongside with the Media-Pool. The rack/bin model is not a 90-degree departure from Vegas media-management, it is a very valuable extension of media-management that Vegas will need to include if SoFo wants to compete better against FCP, XDV and other apps. Anyone who has actually edited for a living would agree with this.

Some people may not need bins or racks... but they are probably not career editors. (Any career editors that are satisfied with Vegas media-management and do not want it further developed, please say so.)

Regards, MPH




gafitz wrote on 9/19/2002, 9:20 AM
Please stop <winking> and just say what you want to say. I find that habit intensely annoying and one that detracts from your arguement; in future please put your focus on developing your points and not your verbal tics.
John_Beech wrote on 9/19/2002, 9:47 AM
Not wanting to see BillyBoy really mad at me, I henceforth apologize for my tantrum and yes BB, it did make me feel better. However, in the future, may I suggest you are too talented in communications to needs be resort to such pointed tactics as the verbal jabs you throw. They are both offensive and dilutive of your very ideas.

Vic, much as it pains me to admit it, in another thread BB pointed out using the regular Windows Explorer - which in XP (running in default Web View) shows me picons (picture icons). Since I can open multiple instances of Explorer - one each per reel and since VV is designed as a one monitor tool anyway, I can use the second monitor to hold four usable Explorer windows looking at 4 directories (each is a reel of course). It's a lame substitute until SoFo incorporate the idea into the VV toolset itself though presumably without as much overhead as this workaround represents.

Lame substitute? I.e. the space lost to menus, the space taken up by the corresponding *,avi.sfk files (this alone halves the number of useable picons since there is one for each clip), and the general mis-management of space what with the amount of white space between picons along with the clip-name being below the picon when it can be 'within' a text-box (along the lower edge within the picture itself).

On the plus side, right-clicking a picon and selecting "play" is very handy though I think a more thorough implementation would 'also' allow the overlay of the transport buttons along the top edge (within the picture field again) and thus let me play the much smaller picon itself for those occasions (most I suspect) when even that tiny image playing will be sufficient to aid in identification.

Folks, I don't know about you, but I've been doing this for years. I, like everybody else, try and give the most descriptive name I can to every clip on every reel, and I even have a method to my madness vis-a-vis organization, but I nonetheless find that I will come back to something months, or years, later and wonder what the heck I was thinking by certain names!

The facility of easily playing back the clip in Expolorer is a welcome addition from my other workstation as playbeck even in super-tiny picon-mode is great!. My old NLE doesn't do it without a utility developed by a friend, so it would be very handy when/if the folder feature is incorporated into VV for it to add these features in addition to sorting fuctions mentioned previously.

Finally, I would urge you to use the SoFo facility for idea-suggestion to register your needs. These guys have deveolped such a neat tool in VV and these additions will make it better yet. If it's not obvious, if you have not purchased a software-NLE yet, then trust me when I say Vegas Video 3.0 should be the one to buy. The sooner you do it, the sooner you'll be productive with it - recommended.